Did he argue SF likes graffiti? I don't think he does, and the people living in the city certainly don't. These are criminals tagging buildings, and city officials who either don't care or are too busy with other things. I'm not aware of anyone who actually lives there who likes graffiti, and logically there's no reason anyone should. If someone wanted a mural they would have hired a real artist to do it.
He's arguing that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, and the reason is, (going out on a limb here) SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.
> SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.
SF residents are incredibly snobby when it comes to street art. The typical tagging, 2 minute stencil sprays, and so forth are not up to posh standards of SF residents. I don't think most SFers think those are "renegade artistic expression". Maybe some of folks in Berkeley would but not SF.
There's a huge disconnect from the city residents and a lot of what happens by the government. SFPD is a prime example of this. Almost none of the cops live in SF. A lot of the people committing crime also don't live in SF. It's a weird city.
I've lived through this whole epidemic, I remember seeing the origional modern Grafitti guy's work all over North Philly on my way to the doctor in the mid 1970s. That guy's name was CornBread. The artful mural like tagging origionating in the Bronx is another story but there have always been a-holes who tag some scribble over other stuff.
Once they catch an artist in the act, they will use these archives to recommend a punishment.
But your point in valid - San Francisco likes graffiti.